Dyno, safe harbor only protects them from predictive statements in PR's, not public statements spoken, put on public websites as alleged facts, or social media posts and bragging. I just read about a major biopharma that got nailed for a couple million $$ in fines just for claiming loosely, a benefit of their drug that had never been tested for in the case made on their website pages. Safe Harbor only covers, legitimately, statements made about estimated values and timetables, or predictions in product performance and company schedules.
You go out on public speaking like Charles and Chandra did, social media, and your own corporate website, you just became game for every lawyer with an itch.:
Problem is, PINK's are a mere annoyance, not a major rash. It would take a lot of complaints to get an attorney interested in the case. that could be done. (And I still have seen no proof that Charles or Chandra own that IP outright.) I suspect they took samples and copies of all of it, because they fear no retaliation over some side-employment agreement none of us know about.
That, or as a company, ENZC was the biggest fool ever and did not assign protection over their work product. Hard to believe Harry would have ever accepted that.
GLTA
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
